Analyses of SPR sensorgrams suggested that, in addition to GDF8 and GDF11, both WFIKKN proteins bind TGFb1, bone morphogenetic pro-tein BMP2 and BMP4 with relatively high affinity Kd 106M
Trang 1and BMP4 but do not inhibit their signalling activity
Gyo¨rgy Szla´ma, Katalin Konda´s, Ma´ria Trexler and La´szlo´ Patthy
Institute of Enzymology, Budapest, Hungary
Introduction
Growth factors of the transforming growth factor b
(TGFb) family regulate many cellular processes,
includ-ing cell proliferation, differentiation and lineage
deter-mination In humans, more than 30 structurally related
proteins belong to this family [1] Members of this protein
family are usually assigned to three main subfamilies: activins, TGFbs and bone morphogenic proteins (BMPs)⁄ growth and differentiation factors (GDFs) TGFb family members are secreted as large precursor proteins and the mature growth factors are released from these precursors through cleavage by furin-type prote-ases In several cases, the prodomain and the mature
Keywords
BMP; GDF11; GDF8; TGFb; WFIKKN
Correspondence
L Patthy, Institute of Enzymology,
Budapest, Karolina ut 29, Hungary
Fax: +361 466 5465
Tel: + 361 209 3537
E-mail: patthy@enzim.hu
(Received 1 June 2010, revised 5 October
2010, accepted 8 October 2010)
doi:10.1111/j.1742-4658.2010.07909.x
WFIKKN1 and WFIKKN2 are large extracellular multidomain proteins consisting of a WAP domain, a follistatin domain, an immunoglobulin domain, two Kunitz-type protease inhibitor domains and an NTR domain Recent experiments have shown that both proteins have high affinity for growth and differentiation factor (GDF)8 and GDF11 Here we study the interaction of WFIKKN proteins with several additional representatives of the transforming growth factor (TGF)b family using SPR measurements Analyses of SPR sensorgrams suggested that, in addition to GDF8 and GDF11, both WFIKKN proteins bind TGFb1, bone morphogenetic pro-tein (BMP)2 and BMP4 with relatively high affinity (Kd 10)6M) To assess the biological significance of these interactions we studied the effect
of WFIKKN proteins on the activity of GDF8, GDF11, TGFb1, BMP2 and BMP4 using reporter assays These studies revealed that WFIKKN1 and WFIKKN2 inhibited the biological activity of GDF8 and GDF11 in the nanomolar range, whereas they did not inhibit the activities of TGFb1, BMP2 and BMP4 even in the micromolar range Our data indicate that WFIKKN proteins are antagonists of GDF8 and GDF11, but in the case
of TGFb1, BMP2 and BMP4 they function as growth factor binding pro-teins It is suggested that the physical association of WFIKKN proteins with these growth factors may localize their action and thus help to estab-lish growth factor gradients in the extracellular space
Structured digital abstract
l A list of the large number of protein-protein interactions described in this article is available via the MINT article MINT-8044119
Abbreviations
ACRIIB, activin receptor IIB; BMP2, bone morphogenetic protein 2; BMP3, bone morphogenetic protein 3; BMP4, bone morphogenetic protein 4; BMP8b, bone morphogenetic protein 8b; BMP11, bone morphogenetic protein 11 or growth and differentiation factor 11; BMPRIA, bone morphogenetic protein receptor IA; ECD, extracellular domain; GDF11, growth and differentiation factor 11 or bone
morphogenetic protein 11; GDF8, growth and differentiation factor 8 or myostatin; TGFb1, transforming growth factor b1; TGF-bsRII, recombinant protein corresponding to the extracellular domain of TGFb1 receptor TGF-bbRII; WFIKKN1 and WFIKKN2 – WAP, follistatin, immunoglobulin, kunitz and netrin domain containing protein 1 and 2.
Trang 2disulfide-bonded homodimer growth factor remain
asso-ciated after proteolytic cleavage [2–4] The
prodo-main⁄ growth factor complexes confer latency on the
growth factors and the active homodimeric growth
fac-tors may be liberated from the latent complexes through
degradation of the propeptides by proteases [4–6]
TGFb family proteins signal through type I and
type II serine–threonine kinase receptors; in
verte-brates, seven type I receptors and five type II receptors
have been identified [1] Homodimeric growth factors
bind to two type I and two type II receptors to form a
hexameric signalling complex In these complexes,
type II receptors phosphorylate a short segment of
type I receptors, which in turn phosphorylate
down-stream targets [7,8]
The number of growth factors available for
signal-ling is tightly regulated by several, structurally
differ-ent antagonists that, by interacting with the growth
factors, alter or diminish their binding to the receptors
Similar to the prodomain in latent complexes,
inhibi-tory proteins, like chordin, noggin, follistatin,
follista-tin-related protein and gremlin bind various members
of the TGFb family with high affinity and block their
interaction with their receptors [9]
Recent studies have expanded the list of TGFb
antagonists to include WFIKKN1 and WFIKKN2
proteins: these proteins bind GDF8 (myostatin) and
GDF11 (BMP11) with high affinity [10] WFIKKN
proteins are large extracellular multidomain proteins
that contain a WAP domain, a Follistatin⁄ Kazal
domain, an immunoglobulin domain, two Kunitz-type
protease inhibitor domains and an NTR domain
[11,12] The fact that, in luciferase reporter assays,
WFIKKN2 inhibited the activity of myostatin and
GDF11 [13] suggests that WFIKKNs may play crucial
roles in the regulation of processes (muscle growth,
anterior⁄ posterior patterning of the axial skeleton, etc.)
that are under the control of these growth factors
WFIKKN proteins are, however, expressed in
numerous tissues other than those controlled by GDF8
or GDF11 For example, the WFIKKN1 gene is
expressed in pancreas, thymus, liver, kidney, lung,
tes-tis and inner ear, and the WFIKKN2 gene is expressed
in ovary, testis, pancreas, brain and lung [11,12,14],
raising the possibility that the proteins may have
addi-tional functions To investigate this possibility, we used
SPR and luciferase reporter assays to study the
inter-action of WFIKKN1 and WFIKKN2 proteins with
several representatives of the TGFb family
Analyses of SPR sensorgrams have shown that both
WFIKKN proteins bind TGFb1, BMP2 and BMP4
with relatively high affinity (Kd 10)6m), but in
reporter assays they do not inhibit their activities, even
in the micromolar range Our data suggest that WFIKKN proteins may function not only as antago-nists of GDF8 and GDF11, but also as proteins that localize the action of growth factors
Results
Characterization of the interaction of WFIKKN1 and WFIKKN2 with BMP2, BMP3, BMP4, BMP8b and TGFb1 by SPR
SPR analyses suggested that both WFIKKN proteins may bind BMP2, BMP3, BMP4, BMP8b and TGFb1 (Fig 1), although the affinities of WFIKKN1 and WFIKKN2 for these growth factors are significantly lower than those determined for GDF8 and GDF11 (Table 1) No interaction was detected with activin A, even when high (up to 4 lm) concentrations of WFIKKNs were injected on the surface of immobi-lized activin A
The Kd values calculated for the interactions of WFIKKN1 with BMP2 (7.2· 10)7m), BMP3 (3.3·
10)6m), BMP4 (8.2· 10)7m), TGFb1 (4.5· 10)7m)
or for the interactions of WFIKKN2 with BMP2 (4.3· 10)8m), BMP3 (1.8· 10)7m), BMP4 (6.5· 10)8
m), TGFb1 (2.8· 10)8m) were suggestive of relatively high affinities, raising the possibility that these interac-tions may have biological importance
It should be noted, however, that there was a major additional difference between sensorgrams obtained with GDF8⁄ GDF11 and TGFb1 ⁄ BMP2 ⁄ BMP3 ⁄ BMP4 ⁄ BMP8b: the former gave good fits with the simple model of a 1 : 1 Langmuir interaction [10], whereas the association and dissociation curves of the interaction of WFIKKN proteins with the various BMPs gave accept-able fits only with the model of ‘two state reaction with conformational change’ The association and dissocia-tion curves of the interacdissocia-tion of WFIKKN proteins with TGFb1 could be fitted to the model of ‘heteroge-neous ligand parallel reaction’ (see Experimental proce-dures) Because it has been pointed out recently in a critical review of the biosensor literature that parame-ters calculated with the 1 : 1 interaction model are most likely to give reliable estimates of binding constants [15], it may be doubtful whether the Kd values calcu-lated for the interaction of WFIKKN proteins with TGFb1, BMP2, BMP3, BMP4, BMP8b are valid, and whether WFIKKNs are efficient inhibitors of the bind-ing of these growth factors to their cognate receptors
To answer these questions, we studied the ability of WFIKKN proteins to block the binding of growth fac-tors to their recepfac-tors using SPR in a solution-competi-tion format, as well as luciferase reporter assays
Trang 360
100
C
Time (s)
40 100 160 220
D
Time (s)
60
220
380
E
220 460 700
F
Time (s)
140
300
G
150 550 950
H
Time (s)
300
620
I
Time (s)
0 40 80
J
Time (s)
20
100
A
Time (s)
WFIKKN1-BMP4
60 220 380
B
Time (s)
WFIKKN2-BMP4
Fig 1 Characterization of the interaction of WFIKKN1 and WFIKKN2 with members of the TGFb family using SPR assays Sensorgrams of the interactions of: (A) WFIKKN1 (500 nM, 1, 1.25, 1.5 and 2 lM) with BMP4; (B) WFIKKN2 (25, 50, 100, 250, 500 and 1000 nM) with BMP4; (C) WFIKKN1 (1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 lM) with TGFb1; (D) WFIKKN2 (250 AND 500 nM, and 1, 2 and 4 lM) with TGFb1; (E) WFIKKN1 (400 and
750 nM, 2 and 3 lM) with BMP2; (F) WFIKKN2 (50, 100, 250 and 500 nM) with BMP2; (G) WFIKKN1 (500 and 750 nM, 1 and 1.5 lM) with BMP3; (H) WFIKKN2 (100, 250 and 500 nM, 1 and 2 lM) with BMP3; (I) WFIKKN1 (250, 500 and 750 nM, 1, 1.25, 1.5 and 2 lM) with BMP8b; (J) WFIKKN2 (250, 500 and 750 nM, 1 and 1.5 lM) with BMP8b Various concentrations of WFIKKN1 or WFIKKN2 in 20 mM Hepes buffer,
pH 7.5, containing 150 mM NaCl, 5 mM EDTA, 0.005% Tween 20 were injected over CM5 sensorchips containing the immobilized growth factors For each type of experiment, one set of representative data from three parallel experiments are shown For the sake of clarity, the concentrations of WFIKKN proteins are not indicated in the panels; in each case, the SPR response increased parallel to the increase in WFIKKN concentration.
Trang 4Effect of WFIKKN1 and WFIKKN2 on binding of
GDF8, GDF11, BMP2, BMP4 and TGFb1 to the
extracellular domains of their cognate receptors
As shown inFig 2A, GDF8 binds tightly to the
extra-cellular domain (ECD) of its receptor, activin
recep-tor IIB (ACRIIB), with a Kd value of 1.6· 10)9m,
comparable with that determined for intact receptors
present on cells (Table 2) Preincubation of GDF8
with increasing concentrations of WFIKKN1 (Fig 2B)
or WFIKKN2 (Fig 2C) efficiently decreased the
recorded SPR response and association rate, indicating
that GDF8–WFIKKN1 and GDF8–WFIKKN2
com-plexes formed are unable to bind to the ECD of the
receptor protein Analysis of the data revealed that
WFIKKN1 and WFIKKN2 caused a 50% decrease in
the rate of association of GDF8 to the ECD of
ACRI-IB at 20 and 12 nm, respectively GDF11 also
binds tightly to the ECD of its receptor (Fig 2D), with
a Kdvalue of 4.8· 10)10m (Table 2) Preincubation of
GDF11 with increasing concentrations of WFIKKN1
(Fig 2E) or WFIKKN2 (Fig 2F) efficiently decreased
the recorded SPR response and association rate:
WFIKKN1 and WFIKKN2 caused a 50% decrease
in the rate of association of GDF11 to the ECD of
ACRIIB at 40 and 5 nm, respectively
In similar experiments, we investigated the effect of
WFIKKN1 and WFIKKN2 on the binding of BMP2
and BMP4 to the ECD of their high-affinity receptor
bone morphogenetic protein receptor IA (BMPRIA)
As shown in Fig 3, both BMP2 (Fig 3A) and BMP4
(Fig 3B) had high affinity for the ECD of BMPRIA,
with Kd values comparable with those determined by
others (Table 2)
Preincubation of BMP2 or BMP4 with increasing
concentrations of WFIKKN1 resulted only in weak
inhibition even at the highest (4 lm) concentration of WFIKKN1 (Fig 3C,D) WFIKKN2 proved to be a slightly more efficient inhibitor of both BMP2 and BMP4 than WFIKKN1 As shown in Fig 3E,F, WFIKKN2 decreased both the recorded SPR response and the association rate; WFIKKN2 caused a 50% decrease in the rate of association of BMP2 and BMP4 to the ECD of BMPRIA at 2 and 3 lm, respectively
TGFb1 had high affinity for the immobilized ECD
of TGFbRII; based on analyses of sensorgrams, the interaction is characterized by a Kd value of
5· 10)11m (Table 2) Preincubation of TGFb1 with increasing concentrations of WFIKKN2 caused a 50% decrease in the rate of association to its receptor at
1 lm In the case of WFIKKN1, even the highest concentration used (2 lm) caused only a 20% decrease
in the rate of association of the growth factor to its receptor (data not shown)
Effect of WFIKKN1 and WFIKKN2 on growth factor activity of GDF8, GDF11, BMP2, BMP4 and TGFb1
As shown inFig 4A, both WFIKKN1 and WFIKKN2 efficiently inhibited the activity of GDF8 in luciferase reporter assays, half-maximal inhibition being achieved
by 6 nm WFIKKN1 and by 3 nm WFIKKN2 Similarly, WFIKKN1 and WFIKKN2 inhibited the activity of GDF11; 50 nm WFIKKN1 and WFIKKN2 caused 80% and 90% inhibition, respectively (data not shown) By contrast with GDF8 and GDF11, in the case of TGFb1, BMP2 and BMP4, neither WFIKKN1 nor WFIKKN2 was able to cause inhibition even at the highest concentrations (1 lm) used (Fig 4B–D)
Discussion
SPR studies on the interaction of WFIKKN1 and WFIKKN2 proteins have raised the possibility that both proteins may bind several members of the TGFb family: their affinities for ligands were found to decrease
in the order GDF8⁄ GDF11 >> TGFb1 ⁄ BMP2 ⁄ BMP4 > BMP3 > BMP8b, with no detectable affinity for activin A (Fig 1 and Table 1) The lack of affinity
of WFIKKNs for activin A is in harmony with the observation that, in luciferase reporter assays, WFIKKN2 had no effect on the activity of activin [13] Our observation, however, that both WFIKKN1 and WFIKKN2 appeared to bind TGFb1, BMP2 and BMP4 with relatively high affinity in SPR experiments does not necessarily mean that they are efficient inhibi-tors of these growth facinhibi-tors The use of SPR to
Table 1 Kinetic parameters of the interaction of BMP2, BMP3
BMP4, BMP8b, TGFb1, GDF8 and GDF11 with WFIKKN1 and
WFIKKN2 The equilibrium dissociation constants of the interactions
were determined from SPR measurements with BIAEVALUATION
soft-ware 4.0 The K d values of the interaction of GDF8 and GDF11 with
WFIKKN proteins are taken from Konda´s et al [10].
Interacting proteins Kd(M) Interacting proteins Kd(M)
BMP2 a –WFIKKN1 7.2 · 10)7 BMP2 a –WFIKKN2 4.3 · 10)8
BMP3a–WFIKKN1 3.3 · 10)6 BMP3a–WFIKKN2 1.8 · 10)7
BMP4 a –WFIKKN1 8.2 · 10)7 BMP4 a –WFIKKN2 6.5 · 10)8
BMP8b a –WFIKKN1 3.0 · 10)5 BMP8b a –WFIKKN2 5.3 · 10)5
TGFb1a–WFIKKN1 4.5 · 10)7 TGFb1a–WFIKKN2 2.8 · 10)8
GDF8 a –WFIKKN1 3.3 · 10)8 GDF8 a –WFIKKN2 2.8 · 10)10
GDF11a–WFIKKN1 2.2 · 10)9 GDF11a–WFIKKN2 1.6 · 10)10
a
These proteins were immobilized on the sensorchips.
Trang 5determine dissociation constants of protein–protein
interactions has numerous pitfalls, including problems
associated with the immobilization of one of the
inter-acting partners As pointed out by Rich and Myszka
[15], parameters calculated with the 1 : 1 Langmuir
interaction model are most likely to give reliable
esti-mates of binding constants, therefore that the
interac-tion of WFIKKN proteins with TGFb1, BMP2, BMP3,
BMP4, BMP8b gave acceptable fits only with
alterna-tive models raised doubts about whether the
dissocia-tion constants are valid and, consequently, whether the
interactions detected by SPR have physiological
rele-vance To overcome this problem, we studied the ability
of WFIKKN proteins to block the binding of growth
factors to their receptors using SPR solution-competi-tion assay formats as well as reporter assays
These studies have shown that the conclusions drawn from the different types of assays are in agree-ment in the case of GDF8 and GDF11 For example, the high affinity of WFIKKN1 for GDF8 determined with SPR (Kd 33 nm) is in agreement with its efficiency in inhibiting the binding of GDF8 to its receptor in vitro (IC50 20 nm) and its ability to block the activity of GDF8 in reporter assays (IC50 6 nm) Similarly, the efficiency of WFIKKN2 to inhibit the binding of GDF8 to its receptor in vitro (IC50
12 nm) is in agreement with its ability to block the activity of GDF8 in reporter assays (IC50 3 nm)
0 5 10
15
50 150 250 350 450 550 650 750
Time (s)
0 5 10 15
50 150 250 350 450 550 650
Time (s)
B
–10
0 –10
5 15
50 150 250 350 450 550 650 750
Time (s)
GDF8-WFIKKN1
0 5 10 15
50 150 250 350 450 550 650
Time (s)
C
0 5 15
50 150 250 350 450 550 650 750 850
Time (s)
GDF8-WFIKKN2
0 5 10 15
50 150 250 350 450 550 650
Time (s)
Fig 2 Effect of WFIKKN1 and WFIKKN2 on the binding of GDF8 and GDF11 with the ECD of ACRIIB monitored using SPR Sensorgrams
of the interactions of immobilized ECD of ACRIIB with: (A) GDF8, 5, 10, 20 and 50 nM; (B) 50 nM GDF8 preincubated with 0, 25, 50, 100 and
250 nM WFIKKN1; (C) 50 nM GDF8 preincubated with 0, 12.5, 25, 30 and 50 nM WFIKKN2; (D) GDF11, 2, 2.5, 5, 7.5 and 10 nM; (E) 10 nM GDF11 preincubated with 0, 5, 10, 50, 100 and 200 nM WFIKKN1; (F) 10 nM GDF11 preincubated with 0, 0.5, 1, 2, 4, 6 and 8 nM WFIKKN2 Various concentrations of WFIKKN1 or WFIKKN2 and 50 nM GDF8 or 10 nM GDF11 were preincubated in 20 mM Hepes buffer, pH 7.5, con-taining 150 mM NaCl, 5 mM EDTA, 0.005% Tween 20 for 30 min at room temperature and were injected over CM5 sensorchips containing immobilized ECD of ACRIIB For the sake of clarity, the concentrations of the proteins injected over the sensorchips are not indicated; in (A) and (D) the SPR response increased parallel to the increase in GDF8 and GDF11 concentration, respectively In (B), (C), (E) and (F) the SPR response decreased parallel to the increase in WFIKKN concentration.
Trang 6The differences in the parameters in the different
assays are likely to reflect true variations in the assay
formats: in interactions with immobilized partner
versus competition in the solution phase, immobilized
ECD may not properly represent the structure of the
intact receptor complex present on the cell-surface The
three types of experiments suggest that WFIKKN1 and
WFIKKN2 are potent inhibitors of GDF8 and GDF11
and may play a significant role in the regulation of
biological processes controlled by these growth factors
In the case of BMP2 and BMP4,
solution-competi-tion assays revealed that WFIKKNs inhibit the
bind-ing of these growth factors to immobilized ECDs of
their cognate receptors at higher concentrations (IC50
values of 2–3 lm) than expected from the affinities of
WFIKKNs for immobilized BMP2 and BMP4
(Table 1) In reporter assays, WFIKKNs failed to
inhi-bit the activity of BMP2 and BMP4
In the case of TGFb1, solution-competition assays
also indicated that WFIKKNs inhibit the binding of
this growth factor to its receptor at higher
concentra-tions than expected from the affinities of WFIKKNs
for immobilized TGFb1 (Table 1) In reporter gene
assays, neither WFIKKN1 nor WFIKKN2 inhibited
the biological activity of this growth factor, even at
1 lm (Fig 4B) This observation is in agreement with
the finding of Hill et al [13] that WFIKKN2 did not
inhibit the activity of TGFb1
Although WFIKKN proteins do not inhibit the
sig-nalling activites of BMP2, BMP4 and TGFb1, this
does not necessarily mean that the interactions of
WFIKKNs with BMP2, BMP4 and TGFb1 do not
have physiological relevance Growth factor binding
proteins may control the action of growth factors not only by inhibiting their action, but also, by serving as
a reservoir for growth factors, may localize their action
in the vicinity of the binding proteins and thus help to establish growth factor gradients in the extracellular space through physical association
As a result, the same growth factor binding protein may serve as either an agonist or antagonist of a given growth factor in a context-dependent manner [16–20]
It may be relevant in this respect that WFIKKN1 was shown to be preferentially expressed in the developing inner ear, mainly in the BMP4-positive presumptive cristae, and it was suggested that WFIKKN1 may be involved in the early development of the inner ear sensory organ by controlling the action of BMP4 [14] Because BMP4 not only specifies the sensory epithe-lium of the inner ear, but also regulates its structural development [21,22] we suggest that WFIKKN1 may influence this process by acting as a short-range diffus-ible protein that binds BMP4
Experimental procedures
Reagents, enzymes, PCR primers, proteins, bacterial strains, cell lines and media
Restriction enzymes, T4 DNA Ligase and Klenow polymer-ase were from New England Biolabs (Beverly, MA, USA) PCR primers were obtained from Integrated DNA Technol-ogies (Coralville, IA, USA) For amplification reactions, we used Taq DNA polymerase from Fermentas (Vilnius, Lith-uania) or the proofreading thermostable polymerase Accu-zyme (Bioline, London, UK) DNA purification was performed with Nucleospin Extract PCR purification kit
JM109 bacterial strain was used for DNA propagation during DNA manipulation steps Mature mouse GDF8
GDF11_HUMAN), activin A (A4D1W7, A4D1W7_HU-MAN), BMP2 (P12643, BMP2_HUA4D1W7_HU-MAN), BMP3 (P12645,
BMP8b (P34820, BMP8B_HUMAN), TGFb1 (P01137, TGFB1_HUMAN) and TGF-bsRII (P37173, TGFR2_HU-MAN) (corresponding to the ECD of TGF-bRII) were purchased from R&D Systems (Wiesbaden, Germany) CM5 sensorchips and the reagents for protein coupling to the chips were from Biacore AB (Uppsala, Sweden) Recombinant WFIKKN1 (Q96NZ8, WFKN1_HUMAN)
produced as described previously [10] The Cignal SMAD Reporter Kit was purchased from SaBiosciences (Frederick,
MD, USA), the firefly and Renilla luciferase kits were from Biotium (Hayward, CA, USA) Rhabdomyosarcoma A204 cells were from the German Collection of Microorganisms
Table 2 Interaction of GDF8, BMP2 and BMP4 with immobilized
extracellular domains of their receptors The equilibrium
dissocia-tion constants of the interacdissocia-tions were determined from SPR
mea-surements with BIAEVALUATION software 4.0 For comparison Kd
values determined by others for the interaction of the growth
factors with ECDs of receptors or intact receptors present on cell
surfaces are also shown.
GDF8–ECD ACRIIB 1.6 · 10)9
GDF11–ECD ACRIIB 4.8 · 10)10
TGFb1–ECD TbRII 5 · 10)11
BMP4–ECD BMPRIA 1.2 · 10)9
BMP2–ECD BMPRIA 3.3 · 10)10
Trang 7and Cell Cultures (DSMZ, Braunschweig, Germany) Mink
lung epithelial cells stably transfected with a truncated
and HepG2-BRA cells stably transfected with the BRE–luc
reporter construct [24] were generously provided by
Profes-sor Daniel Rifkin (New York University) Culture media
Dulbecco’s modified Eagle’s medium, McCoy’s 5A and
heat-inactivated fetal bovine serum were obtained from
Sigma-Aldrich (St Louis, MO, USA)
Expression of the ECD of human BMPR1a and AVRIIB in Pichia pastoris
The cDNA fragment coding for the extracellular domain of BMPR1A (P36894, BMR1A_HUMAN) was amplified from
a human prostate first-strand cDNA library (Clontech, Mountain View, CA,USA) using 5¢-GAGGAATTCCAG AATCTGGATAGTATGCTT-3¢ sense and 5¢-GAGGTCG
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Time (s)
B
Time (s)
0
50
100
150
200
250
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
A
0
50
100
150
200
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Time (s)
C
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Time (s)
D
0
50
100
150
200
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Time (s)
E
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Time (s)
F
Fig 3 Effect of WFIKKN1 and WFIKKN2 on the binding of BMP2 and BMP4 to the ECD of BMPRIA monitored using SPR Sensorgrams of the interactions of immobilized ECD of BMPRIA with: (A) BMP2, 5, 10, 15 and 25 nM; (B) BMP4, 10, 15, 20 and 25 nM; (C) 15 nM BMP2 preincubated with 0, 750, 2250 and 3900 nM WFIKKN1; (D) 25 nM BMP4 preincubated with 0, 500, 2500 and 4000 nM WFIKKN1; (E) 15 nM BMP2 preincubated with 0, 750, 2250 and 3900 nM WFIKKN2; and (F) 25 nM BMP4 preincubated with 0, 500, 2500 and 4000 nM WFIKKN2 Various concentrations of WFIKKN1 or WFIKKN2 and 50 nM GDF8 were preincubated in 20 mM Hepes buffer, pH 7.5, containing 150 mM NaCl, 5 mM EDTA, 0.005% Tween 20 for 30 min at room temperature and were injected over CM5 sensorchips containing immobilized ECD of BMPRIA For the sake of clarity, the concentrations of the proteins injected over the sensorchips are not indicated; in (A) and (B) the SPR response increased parallel to the increase in BMP concentration, in (C), (D), (E) and (F) the SPR response decreased parallel to the increase in WFIKKN concentration.
Trang 8primers The cDNA of the ECD of human AVRIIB
(Q13705, AVR2B_HUMAN) was amplified with 5¢-GAGG
AATTCTCTGGGCGTGGGGAGGCTGAG-3¢ sense and
5¢-GAGGTCGACCGTGAGCAGGGTGGGGGCTGT-3¢
antisense primers from a skeletal muscle cDNA library Both
reactions were performed with Accuzyme proofreading Taq
DNA polymerase over 35 reaction cycles The annealing
In both cases, amplified DNAs were digested with EcoRI
and SalI restriction enzymes and ligated into pPiczalphaA
enzymes The introduction of the linearized
pPICZal-phaA_BMPR1A and pPICZalphaA_AVRIIB plasmids into
recom-binant protein was performed according to the protocol described for WFIKKN proteins [10]
The calculated molecular mass of the ECDs of AVRIIB and BMPRIA are 14 971 and 15 499 Da, respectively
induction media showed diffuse bands with molecular masses higher than the expected, suggesting that the recom-binant proteins may be glycosylated Deglycosylation of the proteins by EndoH digestion decreased the molecular
sequence of the recombinant ECD of BMPRIA was EFQNLDSMLHGT and that of the recombinant ECD of AVRIIB was EFSGRGEAETRE (residues in bold
corre-0 200 400 600 800 1000 20
40 60 80 100 120 140 160
B
0 200 400 600 800 1000 0
20 40 60 80 100 120
D
0 20 40 60 80 100
WFIKKN2 WFIKKN1
WFIKKN2 WFIKKN1
WFIKKN2 WFIKKN1
0 200 400 600 800 1000 0
20 40 60 80 100 120 140
C
WFIKKN2 WFIKKN1
A
Fig 4 Effect of WFIKKN1 and WFIKKN2 on the growth factor activities (A) Rhabdomyosarcoma A204 cells transiently transfected with Cig-nal SMAD Luciferase Reporter vector and a Renilla luciferase vector were incubated for 16 h with 0.8 nM GDF8 preincubated with different concentrations of WFIKKN1 ( ) and WFIKKN2 ( ) Firefly luciferase units were normalized to Renilla luciferase units and background values obtained from control cells were subtracted (B) Mink lung epithelial cells stably transfected with a truncated PAI-1 promoter ⁄ firefly lucifer-ase construct (MLEC-clone32) were incubated for 15 h with 8 pM TGFb1 preincubated with different concentrations of WFIKKN1 ( ) and WFIKKN2 ( ) (C) HepG2 cells stably transfected with the BRE–luc reporter construct were incubated for 15 h with 250 pM BMP2 preincu-bated with different concentrations of WFIKKN1 ( ) and WFIKKN2 ( ) (D) HepG2 cells stably transfected with the BRE–luc reporter con-struct were incubated for 15 h with 250 pM BMP4 preincubated with different concentrations of WFIKKN1 ( ) and WFIKKN2 ( ) In the case of (B), (C) and (D), the luciferase activities were normalized to the protein content of the wells and background values obtained from control cells were subtracted The figure shows the mean values of three parallel experiments Error bars represent the SEM.
Trang 9spond to residues of the ECDs, the N-terminal residues EF
originate from the expression constructs)
The structural integrity and stability of recombinant
ECDs was checked by CD spectroscopy CD spectra were
measured over the range 195–250 nm by using a JASCO
J-720 spectropolarimeter thermostatted with a Neslab RT-111
water bath The measurements were carried out in 1 mm
The spectral slit width was 1.0 nm The spectra of the
recombinant proteins were also recorded at different
unfolding of the recombinant ECD of BMPRIA and the
ECD of AVRIIB were monitored at 213 and 230 nm,
respectively, where the difference of the CD spectra recorded
at different temperatures was the largest The heating rate
Protein analyses
The composition of protein samples was analysed by
condi-tions The gels were stained with Coomassie Brilliant Blue
G-250 The concentration of the recombinant proteins was
determined using the following extinction coefficients:
with the online protein analysis tool protparam
SPR analysis
SPR measurements were performed on a BIACORE X (GE
Healthcare, Stockholm, Sweden) instrument Proteins to be
immobilized were dissolved in 50 mm sodium acetate, pH
4.5, and 100 lL of 0.7 lm activin A or 50 lL of 0.8 lm
BMP2 or 100 lL of 0.83 lm BMP3 or 75 lL of 0.7 lm
BMP8b or 50 lL of 0.8 lm BMP4 solutions were injected
by the amine coupling method, according to the
manufac-turer’s instructions TGFb1 was dissolved in 50 mm sodium
acetate, pH 4.1, and 42 lL of a 0.8 lm solution was
and BMPRIA were dissolved in 50 mm sodium acetate, pH
4.0 or 4.2 respectively, and 100 lL of 17.5 lm solutions
dis-solved in 50 mm sodium acetate, pH 4.2, and 100 lL of
For interaction measurements, 80-lL aliquots of
pro-tein solutions were injected over the sensor chips with a
Binding and washes were performed in 20 mm Hepes,
150 mm NaCl, 5 mm EDTA, 0.005% Tween 20 pH 7.5 buffer After each cycle the chips were regenerated with
20 mm Hepes, 150 mm NaCl, 5 mm EDTA, 0.005% Tween 20, pH 7.5 buffer containing 8 m urea
In solution-competition assays, constant concentrations
of growth factors were incubated with increasing concentra-tions of WFIKKN1 or WFIKKN2 in 20 mm Hepes,
150 mm NaCl, 5 mm EDTA, 0.005% Tween 20 pH 7.5 buf-fer for 30 min at room temperature prior to injection on chips with immobilized ECDs of growth factor receptors Control flow cells were prepared by executing the cou-pling reaction in the presence of coucou-pling buffer alone Control flow cells were used to obtain control sensorgrams showing nonspecific binding to the surface as well as refrac-tive index changes resulting from changes in the bulk prop-erties of the solution Control sensorgrams were subtracted from sensorgrams obtained with immobilized ligand To correct for differences between the reaction and reference surfaces, we also subtracted the average of sensorgrams obtained with blank running buffer injections
The kinetic parameters for each interaction were deter-mined by globally fitting the experimental data with
characterized by the chi-square values Fits were accepted
associa-tion and dissociaassocia-tion curves of the interacassocia-tion of GDF8, GDF11, BMP2 and BMP4 with the ECDs of their recep-tors gave good fits with the model of 1 : 1 Langmuir inter-action The sensorgrams of the interaction of WFIKKN proteins with BMPs, however, gave acceptable fits only with the model of ‘two state reaction with conformational change’ In the case of the interaction of WFIKKN pro-teins with TGFb1, the data gave acceptable fits with the model ‘of heterogeneous ligand parallel reaction’
Cell culture
Rhabdomyosarcoma A204 cells were cultured in McCoy’s 5A medium supplemented with 10% fetal bovine serum,
HepG2-BRA cells were cultured in Dulbecco’s modified Eagle’s medium supplemented with 10% fetal bovine serum,
Reporter assays
TGFb1 activity was measured with MLEC-clone32 cells, whereas the activities of BMP2 and BMP4 were monitored with HEPG2-BRA cells, using 96-well tissue culture dishes
allowed to attach for 3 or 24 h respectively, then the
Trang 10medium was changed to Dulbecco’s modified Eagle’s
250 pm BMP2 or 250 pm BMP4, preincubated for 30 min
with different concentrations of WFIKKN1 or WFIKKN2
Control experiments were performed similarly, except that
no growth factor was added
lysed in 100 lL lysis buffer and the luciferase activity of the
samples was determined using the firefly luciferase assay kit
of Biotium on an Appliskan luminometer (Thermo Electron
Corp., Beverly, MA, USA) The protein content of the
samples was determined with the Bio-Rad protein assay
(Bio-Rad, Hercules, CA, USA) and the luciferase activity
was normalized to the protein content of the wells
The activities of GDF8 and GDF11 were studied on
cells were pla-ted in wells of a 96-well plate and were allowed to attach
for 24 h, then transiently transfected with 150 ng Cignal
SMAD Luciferase Reporter vector mixture with 0.4 lL
Lipofectamin 2000 reagent per well, according to the
manu-facturer’s instructions
Transfections were performed in serum-free McCoy’s 5A
The plasmid preparation used for transfections was a 40 : 1
ratio mixture of an inducible, TGFb-responsive firefly
erase construct and a constitutively expressing Renilla
WFIKKN2 were incubated with 0.8 nm growth factors for
passive lysis buffer from the Biotium luciferase kit, and
fire-fly and Renilla luciferase activities were measured
The firefly luciferase units obtained were normalized to
the Renilla luciferase units and background values obtained
alone were subtracted to generate relative luciferase units
Three parallel experiments were performed in all cases
and were repeated at least twice Control experiments were
also performed to check whether WFIKKNs have any
influence on luciferase activity in the absence of added
growth factor
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by grant 72125 of the
National Scientific Research Fund of Hungary
(OTKA) and by grant RET14⁄ 2005 of the National
Office for Research and Technology of Hungary
(NKTH) The authors thank Professor Daniel Rifkin
(New York University) for the generous gift of
HepG2-BRA and MLEC-clone32 cells
References
1 de Caestecker M (2004) The transforming growth fac-tor-beta superfamily of receptors Cytokine & Growth Factor Rev 15, 1–11
2 Miyazono K & Heldin CH (1991) Latent forms of TGF-beta: molecular structure and mechanisms of acti-vation Ciba Found Symp 157, 81–89
3 Thies RS, Chen T, Davies MV, Tomkinson KN, Pear-son AA, Shakey QA & Wolfman NM (2001) GDF-8 propeptide binds to GDF-8 and antagonizes biological activity by inhibiting GDF-8 receptor binding Growth Factors 18, 251–259
4 Ge G, Hopkins DR, Ho WB & Greenspan DS (2005) GDF11 forms a bone morphogenetic protein 1-acti-vated latent complex that can modulate nerve growth factor-induced differentiation of PC12 cells Mol Cell Biol 25, 5846–5858
5 Jenkins G (2008) The role of proteases in transforming growth factor-beta activation Int J Biochem Cell Biol
40, 1068–1078
6 Ge G & Greenspan DS (2006) Developmental roles of
C Embryo Today 78, 47–68
7 Wrana JL (1998) TGF-beta receptors and signalling mechanisms Miner Electrolyte Metab 24, 120–130
8 ten Dijke P, Miyazono K & Heldin CH (1996) Signal-ing via hetero-oligomeric complexes of type I and
Cell Biol 8, 139–145
9 Rosen V (2006) BMP and BMP inhibitors in bone Ann NY Acad Sci 1068, 19–25
10 Konda´s K, Szla´ma G, Trexler M & Patthy L (2008) Both WFIKKN1 and WFIKKN2 have high affinity for growth and differentiation factors 8 and 11 J Biol Chem 283, 23677–23684
11 Trexler M, Ba´nyai L & Patthy L (2001) A human pro-tein containing multiple types of protease-inhibitory modules Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98, 3705–3709
12 Trexler M, Ba´nyai L & Patthy L (2002) Distinct expres-sion pattern of two related human proteins containing multiple types of protease-inhibitory modules Biol Chem 383, 223–228
13 Hill JJ, Qiu Y, Hewick RM & Wolfman NM (2003) Regulation of myostatin in vivo by growth and differen-tiation factor-associated serum protein-1: a novel pro-tein with protease inhibitor and follistatin domains Mol Endocrinol 17, 1144–1154
14 Nishida AT, Kobuke K, Kojima K, Ito J, Honjo T & Tashiro K (2004) OC29 is preferentially expressed in the presumptive sensory organ region of the otocyst Dev Dynam 231, 766–774
15 Rich RL & Myszka DG (2010) Grading the commercial optical biosensor literature – class of 2008: ‘the mighty binders’ J Mol Recognit 23, 1–64